IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED was THE 11*" DAY or Novemaerg-2keL,«$%s %%kk«% %
BEFORE
THE Ho:~.pgLE Mmausrtcé H%.B:LLA9P%A& T
BETWE N:
MADASAH
sxo LATE MANCHAIAH, _
AGED45YRS,
RiAT BALAL{N€%EGO%éVDA 1A Do%:3an,% %
D0DDAGANC$AV3JAl3l.vF'0$T,
KOTAGAL:'HOE3LI"" L %
RAMANAGA.R'»-TALUK «
BANC?¢ALO*REL:?RU"¥*iA~!. :Di,$T.. PETSTIONER
(By srifs Aw.)
A WXRQANACAR---T'ALUK LAND TRSBUNAL
_v?€AMANVAGAR,
T. BANGALORE RURAL D¥ST,,
% « afetirs secv.
2% STATE OF KARNATAKA
* REP. av :73 SECY,
5592'. oar REVENUE,
% M s awe, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEBHL
BANGALORE 560 001
V4
wart Permon t&Q.:25345.\ ?'éao3 1
3 JGGlS§DDA§AH
S/0 LATE HUTCHAIAH,
MAJOR,
R/AT BALALINGE GOWDANA :3ou3:,%[, ~Lj[ %
DODDAGANG/9sWADi F'O8T,_
KOGTAGAL HOBLI,
RAMANAGAR TQ.,
BANGALORE RURAL L:>:sT., A
4 Cl-i§KKA MUNIYAMMA i
MAOR, % :»-3.r_
MAHADEVAPURA"VlLLAG,E;" %
SRIRANGAPATNA
MANDYA DIST, A %
5 L:NGAs;4m%%k
Wm THE? U'W'.L5..G*QWDA
6 SOD.1DVffi*.. H&'5Px!NA'§¢'4MQ§ &
W/D RA5:1A%iA%H%
(R5 & R3 ARE DE:-.?ETE'u'):':\3':DE comm
omen amigo zasazoes} RESPONDENTS
(Byé:r:.R;a§%sATH3:amARAYANA SINGH, HCGP, FOR R1 3.
% Ei3%& _R=4 ARE;SE.RVED, BUT UNREPRESENTEID)
W.P, ss FILED UiA.226 & 227 or
coNs7:%mT:oN or: IND¥A, PRAYWG TO QUASH vane
25.4.2083 BY R'? GRANTING OCCUPANCY
RiSij5T IN FAVOUR OF TH§R{) RESPONQENT.
This Writ Petition ceming on for Hearing this day, the
h K : _C§eurt made {he foilewéng:
L///..
ORDER
Heard the learned counset for the petitienierv
the learned Gevernment Pleader. :;’¥”heife’i§~.”nTo -1repj:’eee.nta’tjen
on behalf of the respondents 3 and v.respant;te:nts L»
are deieted.
2. in this writ peaatanttertttae, 226 and 227 of
the Constitutien.§f..,I’ndi;§}utheihetiitienetVVhae:V”eaIIed in question,
the order the Land Tribunal,
RamaVnaga{atat; itt’ t30:?4-?5 vide Annexure-A.
1′ ardet at Annexure–A, the Land
Tribunal, .R’azn’anag3arant’,*~*”has granted occupancy rights, in
tav£%e’ur:,._ef the thvitdteependent, in respect of sy,No.49/18 of
measuring 1 acre and 20 guntas.
‘V Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ
3 pasmt, u
5. in brief, the facts are, the petitiener claims, his
father iate Manchaiah had purchased 2 acres and 9 guntas of
L/«
4*
land in 8y.No.49/1%/of Talawadi viitage, V.
Sy.No.49/3B, from Smt. Chikkamuniyamma.V_and:
cuttivating the land and the TribL;’naVI”was”–.t_not
granting occupancy rightg in fa§’our14’of;’the thiT.r:d.g
and therefore, this writ petition. ‘V
6. the learned theietittoner contended
that the impugnve§v.Qr§er:’.;anndt law. He also
submitted purchased by the
father of.t.he”A”petitt’t3ner cultivating the land and
thereafter, the land and therefore,
the impugned ord’e.r14Vo’ann:ot’be sustained in few. He also
‘_ that the ilandvin question was not a tenanted land
‘and thTe–vt?athe.A.§:’o£_respondent No.3 has not produced any thing
to aho»ev.thatrjtheVEand in question was teased in his favour and
thereforéethve impugned order cannot be eostained in law. He
“£_*»a¥Vs’o”tauoniitted that the impugned order is not a speaking
‘ ofdet and therefore, it cannot be sustained in tow.
1/